A CURSORY INQUIRY INTO THE CONSISTENCY OF PARTICULAR REDEMPTION AND THE PROMISCUOUS OFFER OF THE GOSPEL

by
Charles J. Arnett
Baptist, strict 'n' particular
Pastor Union Baptist Church
Englewood Ohio

September 10, 1992
INTRODUCTION:

There is a tension between a Baptist's natural aversion to controversy and a Baptist's inherent commitment to a vigorous defense of the faith. It is the intention of this writer to mollify that tension with a cursory inquiry into the consistency of particular redemption and the promiscuous offer of the gospel.
At a Sovereign Grace conference at Union Baptist during the late 1960's, one speaker said that it was easier to explain the general terms in Scripture by the particular than to explain the particular terms by the general. That should make us a little cautious. Our theology should not be based on the easiest way out.
We must admit there are different views concerning the extent and the design of the Atonement. The differences are not just between the Arminian and the Calvinist. It is not just between those who hold widely different views concerning the gospel. Some times I think there is more agreement among the "four point Calvinist" and the "five point Calvinist" than anyone cares to admit. At other times I don't think any two people agree on the Atonement.
I do not expect everyone to agree with me. Probably no one will agree in total. Agreement is not as important as being willing to think about these things and being willing to admit that other side, what ever that might be, may have good reason for their position.
PARTICULAR REDEMPTION ASSERTED:

"As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him," John 17:2. That seems indisputable. The purpose of Christ was to give eternal life to the elect. When Christ clothed Himself with Humanity, he did so to give eternal life to the elect. When He went to the cross, He did so to give eternal life to the elect.
Note also Isaiah 53:10-11. "Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. [11] He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satis- fied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities." He shall accomplish the purpose of the Father. He shall see His seed. He shall see the travail of His soul. Can that mean anything except He will do exactly what he purposed to do? Does that not mean that He will save those that He intended to save? What ever Isaiah 53:6 means, it cannot mean that He tried to save everyone; and that when a person ends up in hell that the purpose of God is defeat- ed. The all in Verse six is a general term. We dare not make it to mean only the elect nor to mean every person in particular. We would prefer to leave it a general, non specific, term.
I am convinced of the particularity of the Atonement. Christ died to give eternal life to the elect. He secured the salvation of the elect by His blood. He accomplished the elect's redemption.
But that isn't all there is to the Atonement. It doesn't help for us to avoid thinking about the problems. We may firmly believe in a victorious vicarious Atonement and still see some universal benefit in the death of Christ.
THE PROMISCUOUS OFFER OF THE GOSPEL ASSERTED:

Do we offer salvation to the lost? Do we offer Christ to the unsaved? I think it is silly to get into a semantic debate over such questions. There can be no question that we indiscrim- inately urge sinners to repent and to believe the record that God gave of His Son. No Regular Baptist will deny that we are to preach the gospel, and to preach the gospel to every creature, to the reprobate as well as to the elect. The apostles preached the gospel indiscriminately.
Notice II Thess. 1:8, "In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:" Did those in hell disobey the gospel? Were they offered the gospel? Was that offered objectively or subjective- ly? The Arminian answers, "Subjectively, the Holy Spirit was doing all He could do." I think it is offered objectively.
What is the gospel? I Cor. 15:1-4 informs us that the gospel is the objective facts of the death, burial and resurrec- tion of the Lord Jesus. We find Paul explaining himself in I Cor. 1:17, 18, 23, & 2:2. As much as the cross was a scandal, Paul preached the Atonement via the Cross.
In very guarded terms; the gospel is that Christ paid such a price that those who believe in Him are saved. The gospel tells us that any sinner that comes to Christ is reconciled to God on the basis of His Atonement. Paul preached the gospel in order to establish the Church at Corinth. The Church at Corinth was estab- lished through the preaching of the gospel
Is the gospel offered to all men? "But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name," John 20:31. (See also 1 John 5:9-13.) We are saved through believing objective truth. No one, not even the elect, is saved by believ- ing that the Holy Spirit has done a work in them. We are not saved by believing in a subjective work of the Holy Spirit. We are justified by faith. That faith is in the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ as objectively revealed. We are not mystics; we believe revelation is complete; the cannon is closed.
"This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief," 1 Tim. 1:15. It seems to me that any sinner, elect or reprobate, has a right to come to Jesus as sinners. Not only does a sinner have a right to come to Jesus on that basis, they should. The offer of the gospel is objective and is not discrim- inatory. The gospel is not, "if you are one of the elect, you can believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and be saved."
"And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:" Acts 17:30. God commands all men everywhere to repent. That is an objective command. It is our responsibility as gospel preachers to urge men, women, boys and girls to repent and turn to the Lord Jesus Christ, based on the sacrifice of Christ.
THE CHALLENGE OF THE UNIVERSALIST & BEGGING THE QUESTION:

I am using the term universalist to define those who hold to an indefinite Atonement that has the same intention for each and every particular person who lives or who ever lived.
Let us just talk about the four point Calvinist. What is the difference between the four point position and the five point position? Some times it is a matter of the decrees. Some say that in the order of decrees, God decreed the fall, decreed redemption, and then decreed election - whoops, that is the four point position; the five point position is the decree of elec- tion preceded the decree of redemption.
Can any Baptist really think the truth of the gospel depends on one's understanding of the order of decrees? I can understand the reformed thinking so - they are bound by "THE" creed - but I cannot understand a Baptist thinking so. The reformed may test orthodoxy by a creed, but Baptists cannot test orthodoxy by a creed. A Baptist distinctive us that orthodoxy must be tested by Scripture and not by a creed. I do not want to be judged by my peers on the basis of my view of the decrees. I resent being called a hyper-Calvinist because I believe the decree of election precedes the decree of redemption.
I think it a more than a little arrogant to say that the four point Calvinist is on the road to Arminianism, and heading down the path to destroying the gospel. Many four pointers believe in grace as strong as the true five point Calvinist.
They have a valid question, even if it is misworded. They ask, "How can you anyone be required to believe that Christ died for their sins if Christ did not die for their sins?" Or they ask, "How can I tell people that Christ died for their sins if He didn't?" I know the pat answer to those questions. "They are required to believe in a person and not in a doctrine." Let us be honest among ourselves; that is begging the question. We are making a semantic debate out of a serious question. We are not answering the question. If we preach the gospel, we offer the person of Christ based on His work. To preach Christ apart from His sacrifice for sin is to preach the liberal gospel. They preach the teaching of Christ but leave out the blood. Are you going to preach salvation by the person of Christ apart from the blood?
"Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood . . .," Rom. 3:25. You cannot separate Christ and His work. We scream loud when men emphasis His work apart from His person. Let us not be guilty of the opposite error.
The question remains. How can we preach the gospel indiscriminately when we believe in particular redemption? Attempts at consistency by the four pointer are not Arminian. I asked an Arminian friend of mine how he could twist Acts. 13:48 to fit his scheme. After a little thought, he said, "Give me more time." Are some five pointers guilty of twisting scripture to fit their scheme.
CONSISTENCY IS IN THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT:
I think many men who call themselves four point do so on the basis that they have been taught particular redemption implies a commercial view of the Atonement. Or because of the caricature of the five point position.
I think T.P. Simmons is wrong. He believed and presented Limited Atonement as a commercial transaction. I would not want to preach his doctrine. I don't think the way he harmonizes the scripture is scriptural. I don't think the commercial view has as much grace as the four point view. There is more to Christ's work as mediator on the cross than vicarious atonement.
"Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand," Isaiah 53:10. He is an offering for sin. (Later we will look at what A. A. Hodge says about that verse.) It seems to me that a sacrifice for sin, cannot be equal to a personal substitute. It may be equivalent, but not equal.
Christ died to give eternal life to those given to him of the Father and we offer eternal life to those who hear us. However, He has authority over all flesh by the same atonement. Spurgeon in "General and Yet Particular," Metropolitan Tabernacle Volume 10, gave several illustrations to illustrate the general aspect of the Atonement which is consistent with the particular aspect.
One illustration was in Mark 4:38 where Jesus was awaken to calm the storm. Why? To saved the disciples. But every boat on that lake benefited by His action; the action intended for the disciples. Another was in Acts 16 when God loosened all the prisoners. Why? For Silas and Paul's benefit. However, all the prisoners benefited from that action.
Who is the 'all flesh' of John 17:2? "For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living," Rom. 14:9. That includes everyone to whom I preach. Did Christ die for them? At least to be their Lord, and His death makes them responsible to receive Him as Lord.
The Lord Jesus purposed to save the elect by His death. He purposed to save them through faith in Himself. He made a sacrifice consistent with the method of saving sinners. What was needed to save the elect was sufficient to save those would come to Him. It must be sufficient to save any sinner to whom the gospel is preached.
Knowing that no illustration will stand on all four, I give the following illustration. Late in 1991, my wife and I bought another car. We had two. A 1982 Malibu and a 1981 Dodge van. My wife wanted me to get rid of the van. I wanted to keep it as a truck. We finally agreed to keep it to provide a spare car for my children when theirs broke down. What is needed to provide spare transportation for my children is what is needed for anyone who needs spare transportation. I did not keep the van for the whole community, but it certainly is sufficient for the whole community.
If Christ's death is sufficient for all then He must have died sufficiently for all. Christ died to give eternal life to as many as the Father gave Him. The Father has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.
HISTORIC STATEMENTS: I want to quote some well known Calvinists.
R. S. Candlish on I John 2:2 says, "The idea, namely, that no true Christian, under a sense of sin, can ever recover his footing in the free grace of God, through any propitiation that is not common to him with 'the whole world.'" The worst enemies of Calvinism are those who challenge such statements. So far as their views are at all intelligent and logical, they make faith impossible. Faith, that is, resting on a free Gospel, and without the warrant of an express personal sign, inward or outward. Whether as a sinner called, or as a backslider recalled, I can build no hope on any propitiation presented to me as peculiar to a class, and not open to the race at large. I am thankful therefore for the assurance that "if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous, who is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world." (1)

Charles Spurgeon gives this invitation, "The whole gospel lies in this - there was One in heaven at the right hand of the Father, very God of very God, and in order to save thee, poor lost and ruined sinner, this adorable Son of God came down, down, down to the manger, to the cross, to the grave, to the lowest parts of the earth; and down in grief, in rejection,in agony, in death. Because he came under the weight and curse of sin, he came down indeed! Because Jesus has come down thus, and borne the punishment of sin, he that believes is him is justified. By that coming down of the Lord from heaven the sinner's sin is put away, and the trans- gression of the believer is forgiven. Believest thou this? Believest thou that Jesus bore thy sins in his own body on the tree? Wilt thou trust into the fact? THOU ARE SAVED. Doubt it not. (2) (Underlined emphasis mine.)

A.A. Hodge teaches us that, "Calvinists believe that the entire dispensation of forbearance under which the human family rest since the fall, including the unjust as well as the just temporal mercies and means of grace, is part of the purchase of Christ's blood. They admit also that Christ did in such a sense die for all men, that he thereby removed all legal obstacles from the salvation of any and every man, and that his satisfaction may be applied to one man as well as to another if God so wills it. . . . The design of Christ in dying was to effect what he actually does effect in the result. 1st. Incidentally to remove the legal impediments out of the way of all men, and render the salvation of every hearer of the gospel objectively possible, so that each one has a right to appropriate it at will, to impetrate temporal blessings for all, and the means of grace for all to whom they are providentially supplied. But, 2d, Specifically his design was to impetrate the actual salvation of his own people, in all the means, conditions, and stages of it, and render it infallible certain. This last, from the nature of the case, must have been his real motive. After the manner of the Augustinian Schoolmen Calvin, on 1 John 2. 2, says, 'Christ died sufficiently for all, but efficiently only for the elect.'" (3)

This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that "Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief," I Tim. 1:15. In preaching to a mixed multitude I would not say, "If you are a sinner, Christ paid for your sins." My question is however, what do you think a sinner would think? And how wrong is a person who says the above?
Did Christ come to save the world? Does any sinner who is part of the human race have a right to think that John 3:16, 17 invites him to come to Christ? (See John Calvin on those verses.)

Is it possible that we might be orthodox and yet remiss in our duty to urge men to repent because we are afraid we might not be consistent?
Conclusion: We must conclude the particularity of the Atonement is in the purpose and not in its potential. Yet the purpose was such a part of His Atonement that we can say, I died with Christ. Dr. Ketcham illustrates this truth like this, "The whole sentence and penalty of death were fully met one day two thousand years ago, by a man bearing my name, and on the record books of glory the entry appears something like this: R. T. Ketcham; Charge, Sin; Verdict, Guilty; Penalty, Death; Date of Execution, A.D. 33; Date of Resurrection, 3 days later; Date of Entrance into Heaven, 40 days later. . . . Christ not only died for you but as you." (4) Did Ketchem go too far in his illustration? I think not. I revel in that illustration. I think it is true. That is my particular redemption.
(1) R. S. Candlish, Exposition of I John, (Grand Rapids: Associated Publishers and Authors, Inc., 1921), p. 34 note
(2) C. H. Spurgeon, Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, (London: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1970), Vol. 33 - 1887, p. 336
(3) A. A. Hodge, Outlines of Theology, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan publishing house, 1972) pp. 416, 417
(4) R. T. Ketcham, Old Testament Pictures of New Testament Truth, 1965, (Des Plaines: Regular Baptist Press, 1865), p. 44 "Used by permission of Regular Baptist Press."